DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2004/0055281) in view of Pott (US 5,992,142).
In Reference to Claim 16
(See Tang, Figures 1-4)
Tang et al. (Tang) discloses:
A method for operating an internal combustion engine (10), wherein the internal combustion engine (10) comprises:
at least one combustion chamber (12) in which a fuel is at least partially burned with ambient air (See Tang, Paragraph [0021]), and
an exhaust tract that is coupled to an outlet side of the at least one combustion chamber (12) in a fluid communicating manner (See Tang, Paragraph [0021]),
wherein hydrogen is used as fuel for the internal combustion engine (10) (See Tang, Paragraph [0021]),
wherein the internal combustion engine (10) also has at least one NOx storage catalyst (B) and an exhaust gas discharged from the at least one combustion chamber (12) into the exhaust tract at least partially flows through the at least one NOx storage catalyst (B) (See Tang, Paragraph [0022]),
the method comprising:
controlling the engine to burn a lean air/hydrogen mixture in the at least one combustion chamber (12) in a first operating state (See Tang, Paragraph [0024]),
regenerating the NOx storage catalyst (B) in a second operating state, by controlling the engine to burn a rich air/hydrogen mixture in the at least one combustion chamber (12) (See Tang, Paragraph [0028]),
wherein the second operating state is set in all operating modes. (See Tang, Paragraphs [0004] & [0024]).
Tang discloses the claimed invention except:
If it is detected that an idling operation of the internal combustion engine is present, setting the second operating state in an idling operation of the internal combustion engine and/or if it is detected that an overrun operation of the internal combustion engine is present, setting the second operating state is set in an overrun operation of the internal combustion engine.
Pott discloses an NOx storage catalyst control system. (See Pott, Abstract). Pott discloses detecting and idling and/or overrun (i.e.-coasting) operation and setting the second operating state (i.e-rich regeneration condition) in response to the detection. (See Pott, Column 5, Lines 3-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have detected and controlled the second operating mode of Tang to occur during detected idling and/or overrun operating modes as both references are directed towards NOx storage catalyst control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that performing the second operating condition (i.e.-regeneration) during idling and/or overrun detected operating modes would have prevented discomfort as such operating modes occur without power output required from the engine thus improving overall drivability of the vehicle while maintaining emissions reduction. (See Pott, Column 5, Lines 3-32).
In Reference to Claim 17
(See Tang, Figures 1-4)
Tang discloses:
wherein the internal combustion engine (10) further comprises an exhaust gas recirculation device (24), via which exhaust gas is returned from the exhaust tract to the combustion chamber (12). (See Tang, Paragraph [0021]).
In Reference to Claim 18
(See Tang, Figures 1-4)
Tang discloses:
Further comprising, in the second operating state, controlling an exhaust gas recirculation device to recirculate exhaust gas into the at least one combustion chamber (12). (See Tang, Paragraph [0024]).
In Reference to Claim 23
(See Tang, Figures 1-4)
Tang discloses:
A control device (22) configured to carry out the method according to claim 16. (See Claim 16 rejection above).
In Reference to Claim 24
(See Tang, Figures 1-4)
Tang discloses:
A system, comprising:
an internal combustion engine (10) comprising:
at least one combustion chamber (12) in which a fuel is at least partially burnable with ambient air (See Tang, Paragraph [0021]),
an exhaust tract which is coupled to an outlet side of the at least one combustion chamber (12) in a fluid communicating manner (See Tang, Paragraph [0021]), and
at least one NOx storage catalyst (B) and an exhaust gas discharged from the at least one combustion chamber (12) into the exhaust tract can at least partially flow through the at least one NOx storage catalyst (B) (See Tang, Paragraph [0022]); and
a storage device for hydrogen, which is coupled to the internal combustion engine (10) in a fluid communicating manner, and
a control device (22) configured to carry out the method according to claim 16. (See Claim 16 rejection above).
The Examiner notes that a hydrogen fueled engine will include a hydrogen storage device to supply the engine with hydrogen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 21-22, 25, and 28 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest “independently changing the flow rate of the exhaust gas in the plurality of the exhaust tract sections by a throttling device which is variable in terms of a degree of throttling and is arranged upstream of the at least one NOx storage catalyst in the plurality the exhaust tract sections, completely suppressing the flow rate in at least one of the exhaust tract sections having at least one NOx storage catalyst for and during the regeneration of that at least one NOx storage catalyst in the respective at least one exhaust tract section, and feeding a reduction agent for reducing the nitrogen oxides stored in each of the at least one NOx storage catalysts into the plurality of exhaust tract sections between the respective at least one NOx storage catalyst and the variable throttle device.” in claim 19 and “wherein the flow rate in at least one of the exhaust tract sections having at least one NOx storage catalyst can be completely suppressed for and during the regeneration of that at least one NOx storage catalyst” in claim 25. Specifically, although the closest prior art of Ancimer discloses suppressing exhaust flow through an at least one exhaust gas tract section, Ancimer discloses suppressing exhaust gas through the exhaust gas tract section including the NOx storage catalyst which is not being regenerated. (emphasis added). Accordingly, The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest “independently changing the flow rate of the exhaust gas in the plurality of the exhaust tract sections by a throttling device which is variable in terms of a degree of throttling and is arranged upstream of the at least one NOx storage catalyst in the plurality the exhaust tract sections, completely suppressing the flow rate in at least one of the exhaust tract sections having at least one NOx storage catalyst for and during the regeneration of that at least one NOx storage catalyst in the respective at least one exhaust tract section, and feeding a reduction agent for reducing the nitrogen oxides stored in each of the at least one NOx storage catalysts into the plurality of exhaust tract sections between the respective at least one NOx storage catalyst and the variable throttle device.” in claim 19 and “wherein the flow rate in at least one of the exhaust tract sections having at least one NOx storage catalyst can be completely suppressed for and during the regeneration of that at least one NOx storage catalyst” in claim 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 September 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights